Acorn may have made mistakes, it may have hired people who were guilty of filing multiple or false applications, but Acorn also has a record of cooperating in investigations against suspect canvassers. But let's get real here. Acorn registers lots of voters who are low income and minorities. These voters historically vote for Democrats. The Bush administration has been after Acorn for years--and isn't too scrupulous about how they do it, either.

Remember David Iglesias, the US Attorney from New Mexico? He was ordered to investigate and prosecute voter fraud (including Acorn). Having heard so much hoopla about the issue, he launched his investigation feeling pretty confident that he'd soon be prosecuting away. Didn't turn out like that. He couldn't find a single case strong enough to take to court--and this is in spite of ever-increasing pressure to do so. Now, this guy wasn't some leftover Clinton era appointee, he was a Republican who began serving in 2001. He was also an attorney who believed in the constitution. He refused to politicize the legal process as ordered, and he was fired, along with seven other US Attorneys.

Iglesias was pretty disillusioned by events. He later said of the administration (quoting from memory here), "I thought I was working for the Jedi knights, but I turned out to be working for the Sith Lords."

So this whole Republicans-accusing-Acorn thing has a history. The FBI has been called in to investigate them before--including in New Mexico when Iglesias was trying to find someone to prosecute. Once this election is over, wait and see how many cases in this "widespread voter fraud scandal" actually make it to court.

Once this election is over, wait and see how many cases in this "widespread voter fraud scandal" actually make it to court.

ACORN has covered its rear by not directly requesting people to illegal falsify registration. But, since the problem has happened time after time -- and generally because of the same set up -- ACORN has to take responsiblity. {b]Not[/b] being able to get enough to criminally prosecute does not mean innocence.

When you take people who are either eager enough for the money, gung-ho enough to do anything if they think their candidate just has to be The One, or people with just enough larceny to scam, you invite fraud. Make quotas, offer monetary incentives, offer prizes ... you have "plausible deniability" but you have still engineered the problem. Of course ACORN is going to cooperate ... they've covered their butts, but they'll keep right along doing it until they are shut down._________________"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988

When you take people who are either eager enough for the money, gung-ho enough to do anything if they think their candidate just has to be The One, or people with just enough larceny to scam, you invite fraud.

I know! The Bush White House really has behaved disgracefully, haven't they?

Aww - This is an unruly site out here in the "Wild Wild West"! My first gander at the hot and heavy debates going on over here. With the complete and total confidence that everyone still treats each other with fondness at the other boards (because I want to go back there . . . most of the time), I'll venture the following statements:

LisaW - You go girl, 'cause you know your stuff and have "real facts" to back things up. Yes, I have to make a shout-out to you, because you are fighting the good fight pretty much alone. My brother likes to say the Democratic party is a party of "feelings" and the Republican party is a party of "fact." Unfortunately, "feelings" don't work too well in the real business world results . . . and our government is essentially a business! Not surprising you're somewhat alone out here, since the media steers our country, and anyone who thinks they are not getting some brain-washing from the predominantly liberal and Democratic partied-media, are sadly un-self-aware ("Soma"). I would go so far as to consider our media the new facisim. In an election year, this is, unfortunately, dangerous. And yes, Fox news does have some conservatives, but the balance of power is absolutely scued [sp?] when it comes to public dissemination of political information.

As for Sarah Palin, as one who has met her and had casual conversations with her when she was the mayor of Wasilla, she is the genuine article, and absolutely concerned for her children's future and state of our country. She has not risen to the governorship in a state predominately male, without having the gonads and intelligence to stand up and lead. She faught her own party, people, and two incumbent male governors to get where she is. If you genuinely believe she is unintelligent . . . what does that make you?? In fact, one of my early conversations with her (at the gym trying to stay in shape like all the rest of us) was her fight with the "good old boy" system of the traditional Republican party, and trying to get somewhere therein. She could not bow to the socialistic ideas of the Democratic party, regardless of what appeared to be an easier road as a woman in politics. I applaud her for her tenacity there. The DEMOCRACTIC MEDIA has portrayed her as some "gun-toting, hick, beauty queen," and I see the brain-washing is apparently working, first hand (as always, for all candidates, when it comes to election drivel). In reality, this woman is extremely smart, savy, honest and hard working for women everywhere, regardless of the party of "women" that now want to disparage her for being a woman. I just shake my head as the lemmings dive into the sea. As for her "experience," anyone who has any business experience absolutely knows a governor has actual experience in "leading" a business (running a government is essentially the same as a business, and whether large or small, the same principles apply . . . I assist people in starting businesses for a living, so I know of what I speak). Sorry Tee, Alaska may be small in population, but we are big in business!!! I will respect everyone's knowledge enough to assume no one wants to ask me the "igloo" question, etc. Alaska's largest city may only have around 600,000 people, but we have some of the highest income per capita in the nation, and, where money flows, cosmopolitan influences will follow. . . translate LOTS of business goes on here, both national and international, which many of the continental US states cannot claim just by virtue of their geography, regardless of population! This equates to business acumen whether the numbers are big or small (add zeros, the math's the same). Sara has absolutely elbowed with the big oil companies here and made a difference in every man, woman and child's wallet here - no kidding!

So -- I see results from her. That's what I care about . . . not a lot of political retoric. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, since I have liberal views on marriage, religion and sexual orientations, and especially personal rights and freedoms. I'm conservative because I do not believe one group of people must support the masses (those who work hard and try to make a wage like me - I was a pregnant teenager not handed anything in life, and I made it with hard work and determination, and especially not repeating my mistakes). People will always be flawed and we will always have those who can and do, and those who just won't, for whatever reason. Our system does have help for those who can't at any stage - but you have to seek that help, and it shouldn't be for a lifetime. I believe in a helping hand, but not a lifetime drain. I refuse to be personally responsible for every person born on this earth (or in this country). That is why America is a different, and generally more productive, place to live. I have three Romanian sisters-in-law who have lived it first hand, and socialistic forms of government just do not work; that is why they continue to fall around the world. Must we learn from the school of hard knocks here, rather than the view of the world governments?

Regardless of any other arguments, for me, the fact Obama thinks its a good idea to further tax those making more than $250,000 per year in profit, tells me he wants to obtain a vote from a particularly vulnerable group; not sustain a system that actually works. The majority of small businesses (aka those "making" at or more than $250,000 per year), create the jobs in this country for those who work for an employer (is this you?). I know the numbers: It's simple math. If an employer has to pay even more to the government in taxes than they are paying now (which IS THE MAJORITY OF WHERE OUR TAX BASE COMES FROM, PEOPLE), they cannot create new jobs for you, and pay health care plans for you, and pay retirement and profit sharing plans for you . . . are you getting the picture yet? This is not "blue sky" talk in my day to day world, it's reality. I can't tell you how many times I've discussed borrowing issues with my clients, to pay those salaries and plans, etc. so you still have a job. If you don't have a job to be offered, you can't buy things, etc. Do you see the system collapsing? It's a round robin effect. Again, right now more than 85% of all taxes in the coffers are supplied by those having a six-figure income (GROSS, not NET - do you understand the difference). This seems like a lot for those who make 30,000/year, but when and if you get there, you will realize just how much more the government wants from your pocket. Ever experienced the "gee, I got a raise, but now I take home less money effect"? Yeah - keep working harder so you can give more and more to the government. This is the reality of the "rich" they keep quoting. It's all to probable you and your husband probably can reach $100,000 together at some point in your lifetime. It's not the "rich" existance you may envision. If you know your taxes, then you understand this theory. If you don't understand taxes (and most don't) political speak is sliding the "tax the rich" verbage by you on your ignorance of the tax system. You very well may be one of those "rich" they ae talking about, and don't even realize it!

In parting, I like both candidates as people. I like McCain as a person; I like Obama as a person (I loved him on Oprah), however, I don't like both the parties' platforms equally, and the platforms are made up of many details. The candidates themselves are being manipulated by the platforms whether they want to or not, and even they have to concede opinions in order to run and succeed. Which one will effect you personally? That's probably where you will vote. Let's hope you are informed enough on the actual platform before you cast that vote. Whomever ends up in office, let's hope the plan actually works in fact!!! Afterall, Rome did eventually fall as well._________________"Life is Managed, Not Cured" (Phil McGraw)

Alaska's largest city may only have around 600,000 people, but we have some of the highest income per capita in the nation, and, where money flows, cosmopolitan influences will follow. . .

Lots of material you gathered here, KathieO. Good for you. I'm not sure it changed my mind, but I certainly found it interesting. However, since you're quoting figures, Alaska's largest city, which is Anchorage, has approx 280,000 people, not 600,000. Actually, the whole of Alaska has approx 670,053 people total. So as governor of that state, it still can be said that many mayors have control over cities with way more population than the whole of Alaska. I know there's big business there, as you said, so population doesn't say it all. But it says a lot, too.

For instance, here in Michigan, our total state population is approx 10.1 million. And we have big business all over the state too (going downhill fast, I know ). Just the same, governing a state which is under a million compared to one that is more than 10 times that population size, is considerable. I'm not saying Palin is not qualified, but most of us don't really know that for sure because our exposure to her has been only seven weeks. I'm not knocking her as a person, especially since I'm still getting to understand her and her thinking. She seems nice. But if she had to truly "step in," that's what hasn't been answered for me yet. Probably that will never come up within the next four years--let's hope not anyway. But why else do we bother nominating a vice president? That's their main role and function, other than break tie votes in the Senate, that is. Depending on the president and his governing tactics, you may never see the vice president again once he takes office. But he's there and will surface if needed. Is Palin the one we would like to surface at such a time? I don't know. Because I don't know her yet.

For instance, here in Michigan, our total state population is approx 10.1 million. And we have big business all over the state too (going downhill fast, I know ). Just the same, governing a state which is under a million compared to one that is more than 10 times that population size, is considerable. I'm not saying Palin is not qualified, but most of us don't really know that for sure because our exposure to her has been only seven weeks.

Yeah ... governing a state to its ruination is really hard work and requires a lot of executive know how.

KathieO wrote:

If you genuinely believe she is unintelligent . . . what does that make you??

It makes you feel better about yourself ... 'cause you get to call all those conservatives who don't agree with you "stupid" (and you can forget the first of your brain trust couldn't even graduate from divinity school ...). The true definition of an elitist is one who thinks they are more intelligent than everyone else ... especially those who don't agree with them. It's kind of like the bullies in schools. They have to try to knock someone (physically, mentally or verbally) in an attempt to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Thanks for the cudos KathieO --_________________"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988

Hey there Tee: You are absolutely right about the number and I stand corrected (my husband keeps telling me I am confusing the two main AK population numbers all the time . . . so you are in good company). Wow - I'm a newby in "sharing" my political thoughts with the "world," and I really did go off on a rant there (that was a long one) I probably don't belong with the "gunslingers," but I'm steadfast in some of my practical observances of politics blending with human nature (not always good). I often fight with myself on balancing my social and personal responsibilities. I always try hard to "stand in the shoes," and weigh the pros and cons of my decisions. I don't want "popularity" or "political mud slinging" to sway my vote . . . and that can be hard at any given time. Thanks again for not beating me up too badly . . . but I'll take it, 'cause I put it out there! (Boy - I really better go back to work today - these boards are addicting!)_________________"Life is Managed, Not Cured" (Phil McGraw)

The true definition of an elitist is one who thinks they are more intelligent than everyone else ... especially those who don't agree with them. It's kind of like the bullies in schools.

It's not like anyone goes around calling themselves an elitist. It's a label that gets thrown at anyone who is liberal, lives on either coast (rather than in the "heartland", where apparently all "real" Americans live), and has a college education. There is a strong anti-intellectual and anti-education component to charges of "elitism" that I find frankly depressing. Since when is it a crime to be intelligent? To be educated?

As for Gov. Palin, that salt-of-the-Earth, good ol' gal, I wonder how she can keep up her woman of the people facade when the RNC has spent more than $150,000 in donor money on wardrobe for her in the past two months, and her makeup artist reportedly is the highest paid person on the McCain-Palin staff? If that doesn't make her "elite", at the very least it underscores what Palin brings to the ticket: a good looking woman in nice clothes and good makeup. It makes John Edwards' $400 haircut, which the right-wingers made hay about for ages, seem downright frugal in comparison.

Yeah ... governing a state to its ruination is really hard work and requires a lot of executive know how.

That's harsh, LisaW. It's not as though Michigan is the only state in this predicament and as though our governor was the one that brought this whole economic turndown about. But, oh well, if you needed to say that, then so be it. I could have chosen any other state with approximately the same amount of population and still made my point; but I didn't. I could have named a state governed by a Republican, but chose my own state instead. Too bad you missed my original intent (or maybe you didn't and just distorted it).

I probably don't belong with the "gunslingers," but I'm steadfast in some of my practical observances of politics blending with human nature (not always good). I often fight with myself on balancing my social and personal responsibilities. I always try hard to "stand in the shoes," and weigh the pros and cons of my decisions. I don't want "popularity" or "political mud slinging" to sway my vote . . . and that can be hard at any given time.

What you described above is a great way to be, KathieO. You did just fine on your post. You were passionate, but still trying to get your points across. You made me stop and think about a few of the things you brought up. I think most of us have pretty much made up our minds on whom we'll be voting for. There are a few others who continue to switch either way, I guess even right up to election day. But by and large, I think the majority of the electorate is fairly sure which way they'll fill in the box or lever to pull.

You're right about one thing, though; and that's if we "put it out there" (meaning the message boards), then we had better be ready to take it, too, as you said in your post. Sometimes that can be quite humbling, but a good lesson to learn also. I'm sure most of us here have felt that unique experience at one time or another.

Last edited by Tee on Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

Yeah ... governing a state to its ruination is really hard work and requires a lot of executive know how.

That's harsh, LisaW. It's not as though Michigan is the only state in this predicament and as though our governor was the one that brought this whole economic turndown about. But, oh well, if you needed to say that, then so be it. I could have chosen any other state with approximately the same amount of population and still made my point; but I didn't. I could have named a state governed by a Republican, but chose my own state instead. Too bad you missed my original intent (or maybe you didn't and just distorted it).[/quote

Thanks, xina. Sometimes it's difficult to get thoughts across, especially when it comes to politics and religion. So probably it's better not to try at all and that's what I tell myself. But then something I read grabs my attention and out comes the sliding drawer that holds the keyboard; and, bingo, my fingertips are bouncing all over those keys. First and foremost to remember is that people's minds are rarely changed in these controversial areas by mini discussions such as these; but most definitely are never changed if the discussion becomes heated. It's a done deal and minds close up.

Just this morning I read several letters to the editor in the newspaper regarding a proposal that's on the Michigan ballot. I rarely write to newspapers, but I couldn't withhold my thoughts after reading these. I don't even care if they're printed, but I felt good about stating my viewpoints.

Margaret wrote:

Having a rational discussion can be difficult. For the most part I'm impressed with how civil this board has remained...but anger is showing.

Anger is showing, most definitely. But also frustration, Margaret. I think all of us here in America have just about had it with this election. It's been two years in the making and enough is enough. One of the two candidates is going to be elected, the sun is going to rise the next morning as usual and life goes on. We're all hoping our own personal choice wins; but of course that's not possible for everyone. There's going to be one who loses. We'll get over it. We always do. The electorate has their voice. But wait--maybe we don't always. After all, we deal with the Electoral College here . Popular vote matters only in each state.

Interesting stuff here! KathieO, I enjoyed your post. The thing that strikes me, though, is that this liberal/conservative fiscal divide isn't really valid any more. I mean, we have a Republican president, and he and a good many of the Republican members of congress supported this bailout, which has drastically changed the entire landscape. It seems to me--and please, correct me if I'm wrong, I really hope I am--is that the labels of "conservative" and "liberal" don't apply any more, at least when it comes to nationalizing industries and what that will mean to us all as taxpayers.

Yes, Obama was in favor of the bailout but so was McCain, and both were in opposition to the citizens who will be paying for it. We already have gross and flagrant abuses by the recipients of this significant amount of taxpayer money--yet somehow the debate doesn't seem to have caught up with the facts. Look at us, we're all still arguing about the definition of the "rich" Obama wants to tax. On another day I would point out that he's really only talking about bringing the tax back where it was in the Clinton era, but who cares now, that point is definitely moot. The real concern is whether anyone in the US, including Joe the Plumber, will be upwardly mobile for a good long time. This financial crisis isn't just a story in the news, it's real--the credit crunch is starting to hit home, the layoffs have already started, and businesspeople I deal with every day are genuinely scared.

But I'm not hearing the candidates taking about that. The election rhetoric is stuck in the pre-financial meltdown era, and the media is treating them like they're making sense! I see one story about the election and the tax plans and whether Obama is a socialist, then the very next story is about the global financial crisis--yet no one seems capable of connecting the two, forcing the candidates to face facts and articulate a plan of action. It's very strange and very unsettling, like alternate realities, which are fun in fiction but weird when you're living in the midst of them.

Whoever gets in will have a heck of a mess on his hands--and the voters are pulling the lever in the dark, since neither of the candidates has had an honest conversation with us about what will really happen when he takes office.

Tee wrote... I think all of us here in America have just about had it with this election. It's been two years in the making and enough is enough.

It certainly is a long campaign, I know our election was announced and over in 5 weeks, with only 2 debates and up to 5 parties at the debate table. That seems short to me. I guess somewhere between 5 weeks and 2 years would be okay.

Last edited by Margaret on Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total